Is the EOS 7D Worth It?

I have a Canon EOS 450D, 50D and a Nikon D300. The D300 rocks in terms of noise and dynamic range performance. I am so very disappointed with my 50D that I swore to be a full Nikon person instead, starting with the upcoming Nikon D700 successor (this year?). Should I wait for the Nikon D700s (D700x?) or should I just go with the Canon 7D now?

On another note, what are the chances of the D700 successor to have Sony's new back-illuminated sensor?

I'm actually wondering if you need a new body - other than video recording, I'm not entirely sure what you would gain from switching from a D300 to a 7D (I am, admittedly, not entirely up to spec on the 7D.)

I'd wait for the D700s/x. And spend the current $$$ allotted for a new body on more lenses. But that's just me.

quote:

On another note, what are the chances of the D700 successor to have Sony's new back-illuminated sensor?

I'm also not too sure if we'll see that sensor in a dSLR anytime soon. I recall reading a Sony tech interview that made it sound like it was only suitable for P&S and bridge cameras for the time being.

The noise levels above ISO 400 is not any better than my entry level 450D (my photography involves a lot of natural light and mostly on the less illuminated subjects). In addition, the dynamic range (again, compared to my 450D, using RAW) is unimpressive. Compared to the D300... no contest.

My thoughts are that if you are currently disappointed by the 50D for the reasons listed, you'll most likely be disappointed by the 7D. While I want the 7D, I don't expect much if any improvement in DR and noise over the 50D. It's for the more pro-level features that it offers that is prompting the upgrade itch.

What Ashe said. I don't think the 7D sensor itself is going to be that much more capable in terms of DR and noise than the 50D... and if you didn't like the 50D's output then there's no point in switching to the 7D.

Originally posted by nukunukoo:The noise levels above ISO 400 is not any better than my entry level 450D (my photography involves a lot of natural light and mostly on the less illuminated subjects). In addition, the dynamic range (again, compared to my 450D, using RAW) is unimpressive. Compared to the D300... no contest.

Your results sound surprising, because the measured noise values of the 50D and D300 are very similar, and though the default settings lose a stop of highlight DR, the shadow DR is damn near identical. With careful processing to both, the D300 has the slight edge in highlights, the 50D in shadows. On the face of it that would seem more useful to me for low light photography. YMMV.

Originally posted by nukunukoo:The noise levels above ISO 400 is not any better than my entry level 450D (my photography involves a lot of natural light and mostly on the less illuminated subjects). In addition, the dynamic range (again, compared to my 450D, using RAW) is unimpressive. Compared to the D300... no contest.

Your results sound surprising, because the measured noise values of the 50D and D300 are very similar, and though the default settings lose a stop of highlight DR, the shadow DR is damn near identical. With careful processing to both, the D300 has the slight edge in highlights, the 50D in shadows. On the face of it that would seem more useful to me for low light photography. YMMV.

All things considered, while trying to be objective, the JPEG output of both are nearly identical but on the RAW side, I can eke out more detail and better quality images taken with the D300. In my case, blown highlights are always the hardest to recover, that's where the D300 also excels in as you noted (but not by much). Both capture contrasty edges quite well. In my workflow though, the D50 does quite decent midtone & shadow colours and detail that clearly overtakes the 450D at that.

All things considered, while trying to be objective, the JPEG output of both are nearly identical but on the RAW side, I can eke out more detail and better quality images taken with the D300. In my case, blown highlights are always the hardest to recover, that's where the D300 also excels in as you noted (but not by much). Both capture contrasty edges quite well. In my workflow though, the D50 does quite decent midtone & shadow colours and detail that clearly overtakes the 450D at that.

If you're doing that kind of processing (actually eking out the detail from the raw files) then I suspect that the only way you're going to get any real improvement is to get a 5D or 5Dii or (if you can shoot at low ISO) maybe the Sony A850?

OTOH if you want megapixels then you've got no choice (IMO) but to see how the 7D fares, because it looks like it might be all kinds of awesome.

While the (pre-release) 7D reviews look promising, I still would wait and see how its 18MP APS-C sensor fares with more mainstream testing. The improvements on HD video recording (especially the 60 fps 720p feature) and higher res (18MP is a more noticeable jump from 12MP) are indeed a plus.

If Nikon does not have anything to counter the 7D directly this year, then I guess the 7D would be on top of my list for Christmas.

One thing to consider for the future 7D shooters: I hope you have really good glass to match the sensor.

Namely, most zooms (and some primes) are sufficiently challenged (i.e. the sensor outresolves them) by 50D, and with 7D the situation will not improve.

To put things into perspective, 5d2 is less challenging than even a 40D, to the effect that some of my long lenses that were marginal on 40D turned good to very good on 5d2. Sadly, wide angles were different story--but, then again, they weren't wide on 40D.

Being almost a grand more expensive than the 7D, the 5D II is over my budget to justify buying it. But is one heck of a camera. Despite having smaller microsites on the sensor (almost half of the D700), the high ISO performance is essentially on par with the D700 with twice the megapixels to boot.

I'm quite surprised there were a few fellows who seem to be pessimistic on the final verdict of the 7D when it hits the streets, both here and on other forums. Not being full frame might be the reason.

Not quite ready for full frame yet though but won't be surprised if my opinion changes next year.

Originally posted by ladavacm:Namely, most zooms (and some primes) are sufficiently challenged (i.e. the sensor outresolves them) by 50D, and with 7D the situation will not improve.

Yeah, exactly... definitely a huge concern.

www.photozone.de upgraded their Canon testing rig from a Canon 8MP body to a 15MP one a few months or a year ago, and before some lenses that basically maxed out the resolution charts before now are not scoring quite as well. Higher density sensors are demanding.

Originally posted by nukunukoo:Being almost a grand more expensive than the 7D, the 5D II is over my budget to justify buying it. But is one heck of a camera. Despite having smaller microsites on the sensor (almost half of the D700), the high ISO performance is essentially on par with the D700 with twice the megapixels to boot.

Originally posted by nukunukoo:Being almost a grand more expensive than the 7D, the 5D II is over my budget to justify buying it. But is one heck of a camera. Despite having smaller microsites on the sensor (almost half of the D700), the high ISO performance is essentially on par with the D700 with twice the megapixels to boot.

Pity it doesn't shoot 8 fps.

Considering that the CPU has to process and transfer 21 megapixels (that's either x3 8-bit colours or 16-bit colours for a processing/transfer load of 63 to roughly 126 megabytes per pix, that's kinda forgivable.

It seems like a DIGIC 4 is good for about 90 MP/sec (50D is 6 fps at 15 MP, 5Dii is 4 fps at 21 MP). This suggests that the 7D has room to spare (8 fps at 18 MP = 144), and that a dual DIGIC 4 5Diii would also be good for 8 fps, assuming they didn't increase the resolution. And who knows what DIGIC 5 will be good for.

Originally posted by IceStorm:That would eat into their 1D line, though.

I think the 7D fills its niche perfectly. It gives people who favor the crop sensor's extra reach an alternative to moving to a 1D or 5D and having to buy all-new, heavy glass. It's like a 1D lite.

Probably at some leavel, but FPS alone wouldnt decide everything, especially sport photographers that might be more used to the way of working and the better AF-system, etc. In that way i think the 7D eats into the 1D line more then a dual cpu 5D would.

Still, I'm still pitching my hopes for a 135-format 1D series in the spring.

7D will eat into the 1D line, but not by muhc, pro sports shooters will still want the 1D.

Even the 1DmkIIn (8fps, 8mp) has more AF points, better build and importantly a much larger shot buffer. A lot of pro sport shooters dont care about higher MP they just want the shot , quick, to the sports desk.

Originally posted by RobDickinson:Only on a pixel peeping level, same shot, printed same size, from 18mp should look as good or better than an 8mp one even if the lens is the limiting factor.

Granted, it will not be worse, but it will not show twice the resolution; that is, it will not be possible to enlarge it to twice the area--assuming, of course that the image is lens-limited.

However, if the 8 MP sensor were of the same generation, it could have much better dynamic range: i.e. one cannot meaningfully compare the sensors from 20D and 7D.

For APS-C, my feeling is that 12 MP is the sweet spot, considering the available lenses. It is sufficient for a nicely detailed 13x19 print of a landscape. Full frame with similar density (5d2, D3x, A900, etc) is sufficient for 17x25 prints. Other subjects, such as portraits are less problematic, as the resolution requirements are much lower.

One might expect that a 19 MP APS-C would also enable 17x25 prints; however, the lenses necessary to enable the required enlargement might turn up to be quite expensive; much more, in fact, than the price difference in camera bodies.

I would much rather have 1080p at a higher framerate (60, 100, or even 120) than have a high full-res still framerate.

I often use flashes so more than a couple frames per second isn't generally very much use to me; I don't foresee buying $40,000 worth of ProFoto gear any time soon, so the 1-3fps that I normally see out of my Vagabond II is the limiting factor in a lot of my shots.

1080x1920 is around 2MP so it seems like dual Digic4 processors should be able to handle 70fps. The buffer must be a bottleneck here.

Originally posted by nukunukoo:Being almost a grand more expensive than the 7D, the 5D II is over my budget to justify buying it. But is one heck of a camera. Despite having smaller microsites on the sensor (almost half of the D700), the high ISO performance is essentially on par with the D700 with twice the megapixels to boot.

Pity it doesn't shoot 8 fps.

But, then again, mountains don't move very fast

IOW, it is not a sports camera; it also has a quite bad and slow AF, much worse than even 40D.

Originally posted by CUclimber:1080x1920 is around 2MP so it seems like dual Digic4 processors should be able to handle 70fps. The buffer must be a bottleneck here.

That, and the rate of transfer to the card, of course.

True. I doubt Canon wants to be in the position of having to recommend specific CF cards in order to guarantee certain video framerates. Many CF cards are perfectly capable of incredibly high data rates (just look at the RED cards...), but until all of them are there's going to be a lack of camera support for the feature.

Er? 5D II's basically got the same AF module as the 50D if memory serves.

That said I have one, and yeah, it's definitely not a sports camera. Shooting side by side with a 1Ds Mark III (which itself is definitely not a sports camera either) in action situations, the 1Ds III was definitely better with the faster frame rate (5fps vs. 3.9fps) but the slower feeling buffer cycle time of the 1Ds III vs. the 5D II sucked.

(and we really wished we had brought the 1D III instead with its 10fps. sigh. oops!)

quote:

Many CF cards are perfectly capable of incredibly high data rates

Yep! The new Sandisk Extreme's and Extreme Pro, and the Transcend 600x alongside the PhotoFast GMonster 533X and 533X Plus...

Er? 5D II's basically got the same AF module as the 50D if memory serves.

Nope its different. It has some helper AF points for tracking clustered around the center point etc.

40D and 50D have the same AF module, all 9 points are cross type, center is cross and diagonal (at f/2.8)

5d2 is only cross in center, other 8 are line type. It is definitely a step back. It also feels less sensitive in very low light. However, with Eg-S focusing screen, manual focusing is quite possible and accurate.